Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Mainstream Large Sedans Comparison

1216217218220222

Comments

  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    What's with the current Taurus - all that back seat legroom, but cramped driver's leg room further aggravated by intruding wheel wells?

    CRAMPED Driver's Legroom? I'm 6'5" (with a short torso, long legs) and find there to be plentiful legroom front and back (I tend to sit with the seat all the way back in every car or full size truck I've driven). The real aggrivating thing is the lack of a telescoping steering wheel, although I think the Impala lacks this also, right?
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    CRAMPED Driver's Legroom

    Every car is different for some people. For example when I drove the Genesis I felt it wasn't as roomy as my '06 Avalon, but the #s would say it is. Just my body type I guess.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • I have a 2008 Sable, and also find the drivers legroom ample. It has power adjustable pedals, and by adjusting them and the seat, the need for a telescoping steering wheel is diminished. Since my wife is shorter than I am, the memory settings come in handy.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    I think it has everything to do with how and individual sets the seat up. I'm 6'2" tall and when I tested the Genesis, I had no issues with leg room at all. Even with the seat in the position I needed, it left ample room for the back seat as well.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Well sure, its different person-to-person. I was just surprised because as a 6'5" guy, I'm used to having legroom issues EVERYWHERE but never having headroom problems. Heck, I have an Accord Sedan with a moonroof and can adjust my power seat almost all the way up with no problems. All my height is in my legs, and the Taurus felt plenty roomy up front.

    Don't get me wrong though, you guys know I'm not so hard-headed as to believe where I'm comfortable, others may not be! ;)
  • tonycdtonycd Posts: 223
    "I predict that gas will hit $3 before $8! Once the speculation factor goes away."

    You said it way back in June. Helluva good call, Ron.
  • allmet33allmet33 Posts: 3,557
    I feel you, but at 6'2"...I've NEVER had leg room issues in the driver's seat of any car I've driven (and it's been quite a few). If anything, the only leg room problem has ever been those that ride behind me.

    I also think some of it has to do with perception. If the driver's cockpit seems cramped, then you will feel cramped no matter what. Some automakers do a good job of making the driver's area seem spacious. In today's world with adjustable pedals, tilt and telescoping steering wheels...I don't understand how leg room can be an issue. Not unless someone just has abnormally long legs.

    You are right on one thing...your driving position may not be comfortable to someone else and vice-a-versa.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Some automakers do a good job of making the driver's area seem spacious. In today's world with adjustable pedals, tilt and telescoping steering wheels...I don't understand how leg room can be an issue. Not unless someone just has abnormally long legs.

    Well, if you have a car that doesn't have those features, it CAN be. Even if it does, sometimes, automakers just don't put in a lot of front-seat travel (such as the Honda Fit, just not enough legroom for me up front).

    I drive a 1996 Accord about every-other day. It's a little lacking in actual legroom, but the whole interior is so open (low dashboard, cowl, lots of glass), the car doesn't feel cramped to me at all. It happens to have excellent steering wheel placement for me; it doesn't telescope, but it is a good distance away... unlike our old Odyssey, or vehicles like the old Corolla model, which was the biggest pain in the arms to drive.

    By the way, with an inseam that is very nearly 35", I'd probably qualify for those "abnormally long legs" comments!
  • badgerfanbadgerfan Posts: 1,565
    Well my 2000 Taurus has been and continues to be an excellent car both from performance and reliability standpoints. I plan on keeping it for at least 3 or 4 more years. Not that interested in the current Taurus as I don't need that big a car. A Fusion would be just fine, or I might even go down to a compact next time.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    My parents almost went with the Fusion over the summer, as my mom is always looking to save some money where possible, but the salesman pointed out that there was more "bargaining" room on the Taurus, and equipped similarly, the Fusion wouldn't be any cheaper. The fact that the Taurus was more powerful and had better fuel economy sealed the deal.

    That said, the new Fusion is due out soon, and should offer improved power & economy.
  • In your post #3518 dated 10/29/07 you mentioned a memory seat problem with your Amanti. I would be very interested in what your problem was. I am having a problem programming the seat using only the controls on the door. Everything worked as described in the manual from 4/08 until about a week ago (11/3/08) when it suddenly would not hold the program. KIA is trying to convince me that the instructions in the manual are wrong and that the seat must be programmed using the remotes, which I have never done. The main control module was replaced, but the problem remains. I would appreciate any information you may have about this problem.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Hey everyone-

    I'm doing a little homework here for my in-laws for they are considering trading their 2004 Maxima for either a 2009 Maxima 3.5 SV (possibly with tech) or a 2009 Mazda6 s GT (possibly with Nav).

    They are similar in size, although the Max is bigger which is not a good thing in their eyes since they thought the 04 was a bit too big. They are very similarly equipped too. The Mazda has Bluetooth, Xenons, leather, dual climate, fuel computer, every safety feature under the Sun and Blind Sport Monitor detection system, something the Max does not have. TO get Xenons on the Max, you need to get Nav. Not the case with Mazda, since they are standard.

    Power goes to Max with 290hp / 261 tq vs Mazda's 272 hp / 269 tq. Fuel economy is similar, however, the Max recommends Premium, is that correct?

    The price advantage will go the the Mazda as well, for I can get them the Mazda6 s GT w/ Nav, moon roof / Bose Audio / Sirius radio for under $30,000. What are the Maxima's selling for? Particularly the SV with Tech, Bluetooth and Xenons?

    BTW, I work for Mazda, so there is no need to educate me on the 6. I don't wanna hear any Ford talk either. Ford does not build or engineer the Mazda6. I'm really looking for useful input on the Maxima. Thanks in advance!
  • "Power goes to Max with 290hp / 261 tq vs Mazda's 272 hp / 269 tq.
    Fuel economy is similar, however, the Max recommends Premium, is that correct?"

    You've got it backwards.

    The Mazda has the edge here because of greater torque.

    Also, if the Max must use premium and the Mazda regular, there is a savings.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    That horespower will matter when merging or passing. Torque is what gets you going from a start. The Maxima's CVT will use the power more effectively and efficiently, because there will be no gear changes; instead, the engine will be able to go right to the best part of the powerband and stay there, unlike a conventional automatic.

    By the way, the Maxima is actually 3 inches shorter in length than the Mazda, which has grown quite large. They shortened the Maxima for 2009.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    I've heard great things about Nissan's CVT. The Aisin unit in the Mazda6 has a very sharp and precise shift which stays in its power band as well. No shift shock or power lag.

    By the way, the Maxima is actually 3 inches shorter in length than the Mazda, which has grown quite large

    Their current Maxima feels like a boat. It's their 3rd Maxima, and they were not a big fan of how big it got, but, purchased it over the Altima at the time, because they felt the Altima was relatively cheap in comparison. I noticed the size change after I posted. The 6 has more interior room too. Should the Max really be considered a mid-sized sedan?? I think so.

    It looks like the price will be closer then I anticipated. I can get them a Mazda6 s GT with Nav / moon roof / Bose / Sirius radio for around $29,300. I've gotten quotes on the Maxima SV with tech, Xenons, and Bluetooth for around $32,500. That's nearly $4,000 off MSRP. Plus Mazda has 0% for 36 months, and I don't think Nissan has anything for the 09 Maxima.

    I guess it's going to come down to what car they like more. They have yet to test drive either. I'm curious to see which they will like more.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The 6 has more interior room too.

    Any numbers on the interior volume? I'm curious, since it has grown so much. I know the Accord (non-moonroof) is 106 cu. ft. and with its 14 cu. ft. trunk, equals the 120 cu. ft. that it takes to get into the "Full Size" car territory. I was just curious how close the 6 comes to this.

    I can't find numbers on the Maxima either.

    Thanks,

    TheGrad
  • From www.fueleconomy.gov

    Passenger Volume

    96 ft3 (4D) 09 Maxima

    102 ft3 (4D) 09 Mazda 6

    Luggage Volume

    14 ft3 (4D) 09 Maxima

    17 ft3 (4D) 09 Mazda 6
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Maxima Mazda6

    Front Headroom (in.) 38.50 39.40
    Rear Headroom (in.) 36.40 37.30
    Front Legroom (in.) 43.80 42.50
    Rear Legroom (in.) 34.60 38.00
    Front Shoulder Room (in.) 56.30 57.30
    Rear Shoulder Room (in.) 55.10 56.50
    Front Hip Room (in.) 53.40 55.10
    Rear Hip Room (in.) 53.90 55.90

    After spending a lot of time in both the Mazda6, and their current 2004 Maxima, the Mazda6 feels smaller.The Mazda6 has a driver focused cockpit and every control can be reached with relative ease. I'm wondering how the 09 Max is in comparison.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    The truck in the Mazda6 is 16.5cu ft, not 17.3.
  • "That horespower will matter when merging or passing. Torque is what gets you going from a start."

    Not necessarily. And not unless you really rev it up.The only way you will get the Maximas greater maximum horsepower is to wind it up to much higher than necessary revs.

    Sure, the Nissan may have a sight edge in a drag race, but most people do not rev their motors to their maximum revs in normal everyday driving.
    In normal everyday daily driving, extra torque is the better way to go.
    I will take a modern 3.7L with more torque to a warmed over higher HP 3.5L engine anytime.
    Torque is what pulls you along in normal everyday driving, when doing normal driving, grade climbing, leaving normally from a dead stop, etc.

    Many do not like the CVT and prefer feeling the gear changes, and from what I have read, Mazdas six speeds do get the job done. I drove that CVT tranny for two days in a rental and it does take some getting used to.
  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    will take a modern 3.7L with more torque to a warmed over higher HP 3.5L engine anytime.

    The 3.5 in the Max (VQ) is one of the best V6s ever.... the 3.7 in the Mazda has a long way to go to even be in the same league IMO.

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • tjc78tjc78 JerseyPosts: 5,025
    I sat in the '09 Max and felt it to be too small to my tastes. Much smaller (esp in the rear) than the outgoing model. However, the quality of the interior is fantastic.

    One of the reviews I read on the '09 Max is Nissan still has some torque steer problems. Automobile mag actually just did a comparo on the Max vs 6 vs Passat cc. I didn't get a chance to read it, though

    1999 Chevy S10 / 2004 Merc Grand Marquis / 2012 Buick LaCrosse

  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Edmunds.com have similar performance times for both vehicles. 6.5 sec to 60mph and 14.7 sec in the 1/4 mile. Both cars weigh about the same too, little over 3,500 lbs.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    I should check out that article. Thanks for your opinion!
  • tonycdtonycd Posts: 223
    They basically said the Mazda was nice beyond its class, but the Maxima and Passat CC were a class above it and it didn't quite bridge the chasm.

    Of course, this is also an admission that the other two cost more.

    If I worked for Mazda, I would be inclined to like its products, so it's hard for me to be too critical. However, it does sound to me as if that's a factor here.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    donna388-
    grad's got it right here - hp is torque delivered over time. the actual formula is hp= (torque*rpm)/5252. In itself and as a measure of any car's ability to accelerate, the higher the HP the better the acceleration times, not necessarily the torque. If the Maxima is about the same weight as the 6 you are talking about, the Maxima's 290hp would easily blow away the 6s 260+. Otherwise we could all be driving around in rev challenged diesels that despite 350 lb ft. (or more) of torque still can't get out of their own way. Wouldn't we? :confuse:
    Yes it is certainly torque that you feel in the seat of your pants when you initially hit the accelerator (as grad noted) BUT it is the abililty of any engine to rev quickly (or apply that torque in a given period of time (making HP)) that determines actual accelerative power. Truck buyers worship torque numbers and tend to buy things like those slow diesels for precisely these reasons - they have big loads they need to get moving and are less concerned with how long it might take to get to any given speed.
    I would also challenge you on the 'modern" V6 assertion on the DT. While the engine is obviously putting out 50 or 60 extra horses than the old DT, is not nearly the 210hp 'dog' that it was comparatively, it is still requiring more displacement to do it. Plain and simple the Nissan VQ is getting quite a bit more hp per unit of displacement than either the Ford or Mazda DT. Furthermore the Ford/Mazda engine is still a coupla generations behind in the valve train design , simple VVT on the intake valves vs. CVVTi intelligent (computer controlled) continuously variable intake AND exhaust valve timing on undeniably the best V6 of this group - the Toyota 2GR. Now that engine - is 'modern' - and innovative. Recent updates have pulled the VQ to almost the same levels as the 2GR, but not quite - it is the VQs remarkable history that sets it above all the rest, including the newer Toyota design.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    If the Maxima is about the same weight as the 6 you are talking about, the Maxima's 290hp would easily blow away the 6s 260+.

    It should, but it does not. Same 0-60 and same 1/4 mile times.

    Furthermore the Ford/Mazda engine is still a coupla generations behind in the valve train design

    That is is. Apparently, Mazda's new VV-T system will debut in the 2010 Mazda3 utilizing control over both intake and exhaust valves. The VV-T in the 3.7L is a carry over from the 3.0L, which was designed by Mazda and only adjusts the intake valves. By late 2010 or 2011, all Mazda models will have the updated VV-T system. Perhaps this would push the 3.7L hp to around 280+

    The VQ is a great engine, however, I would be more impressed if they could figure out how to run it on regular fuel. The fact that they do not offer a VQ engine that runs on regular is a disappointment. Take away the compression ratio of 10:6 and say good by to the impressive power numbers. The Toyota 2GR does run on regular as does the Mazda 3.7 MZI. The 2GR-FSE is very impressive with it's direct injection as well. The 3.7L MZI is adaptable to DI, and DI has been used by Mazda for 3 years in their 2.3L DISI Turbo. I'm wondering when they will add it to the 3.7L.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    It should, but it does not
    and now you start talking about the influences of the trannies (and the gearing) in both cars. The Mazda has poorer FE despite putting out LESS HP, but equal acceleration. The only thing that might explain that - the gearing in the Mazda's 6AT is 'higher' than it effectively is in the CVT, and now you have something that would explain both the Mazda's poorer FE and it's similar acceleration despite giving up 20 something HP.
    Have a sneaking suspicion that the marketing gurus over at Mazda wanted to perpetuate the 'zoom-zoom' thing although the 6.5 is somewha unremarkable these days - the CVT, of course, would argue against the 4DSC pretensions on the Maxima although it would help the FE.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    and now you start talking about the influences of the trannies (and the gearing) in both cars

    ..something that is commonly neglected when talking about performance or fuel economy.

    There is no doubt in my mind that Mazda sacrificed a few MPG's to get better performance numbers. Same can be said for Nissan and how they made a sacrifice.. They are promoting a "4 door sports car" with a 290hp engine when in fact their transmission of choice makes it's performance numbers suffer, but, have people say "26mpg and 290hp..not so bad!"....you are correct. It's all about marketing.
  • I personally think that Toyota needs to fix their transmission problems on their current Avalon before anyone should consider it. We have a Toyota Avalon Limited with 33,000 miles on it and we constantly need to take it back to the dealer to have the transmission "re-flashed," whatever that means. Our car is a 2006 and Toyota is still putting the same transmission in the car and refusses that there is a problem.
Sign In or Register to comment.